MY CALL: OFFICIAL TRACK RATINGS ARE TOO OFTEN WIDE OF THE MARK. WE HAVE TO DO BETTER

By David Fowler | Tuesday, July 14, 2020

David Fowler is the principal thoroughbred caller for Radio TAB. David, who is a keen form student and punter, has enjoyed a lifetime involvement in the racing media. His personal blog, ‘My Call’, appears exclusively on HRO.

In writing this column for almost a decade, you would think subjects that irritate or confound would have been remedied over that time period.

We’re told the world is a smarter place blah blah blah … but in the racing world there’s one issue that is the gift that keeps on giving in the annoying department.

Track ratings.

I’m based in south-east Queensland but from all of the correspondence I read, my frustrations are shared nation-wide.

Take the last 10 days, for example, where there were three meetings in south-east Queensland, at least, where the track rating has been wide of the mark.

I’m going to be bullish here when I say the best indicator to formulate a track rating on the day is the time of the race.

And, yes, I understand that tempo and wind are two factors that can affect a race’s overall time.

But let’s go back a step. The execution of a worthy track rating assessment is a two-part process.

The rating in the lead-up and the rating when the first race is actually run.

Punters are savvy enough to know this two-part process can involve change. In fact, they expect it as it parallels the weather.

Yet officialdom is often slow to move on both parts hence the frustration from those putting their hard earned on.

Punters will generally do their homework on a meeting based on the track rating at acceptance time appreciating a change in weather either way can force a reassessment.

The underlying problem in the first part of the process is that the rating is often too harsh.

Remember the days when a track manager would run a million miles from declaring a heavy track because the theory was punters wouldn’t want to bet on it.

Yet now they’re more than happy to stay down in that neck of the woods, either fearing the wrath of trainers that the track is “too good” or a lack of self-belief in their own patch of grass and their horticultural skills.

To cut to the chase, the track is often in better shape than the start of day rating suggests.

The second part of the process, monitoring the track rating race by race, is inherent with simple mistakes that are made time and time again.

Why are so many stewards’ panels reluctant to make a savage or swift reassessment to a rating?

It’s a 100/1 and drifting you will see a heavy 8 reassessed to a soft 5 even if Blind Freddy can see it’s the case.

Are these panels feeling a pang of sympathy for the track manager or the track-rater? A kindred spirit sort of thing.

And if the track-rater is considered good enough to be employed to rate the track, why is he not employed to be at the meeting from start to finish, particularly if there is a variance in the weather conditions?

Years ago, I argued in this very column for a “track walker” to be employed for all south-east Queensland TAB tracks for the sake of consistency.

The track rating is one of the most important tools in the punter’s armoury.

Yet despite this, the two-part process is still flawed for the same reasons time after time.

It is 2020. We can do better.

David Fowler